UnderCover Waitress: Political Discussion

Friday, September 7, 2012

Political Discussion

Received a long comment of dissent from a reader to my To Whom Shall I Complain? post. Of course, as I am liberal, the voice of dissent represents conservative, Republican viewpoints. 

I considered responding in the comments, but decided that I would rather do so in a new post because more people will see it. The discussion is important, even more so right now as we come closer and closer to November. 

Discuss, debate, and research. Then, vote. 

As always, her words are in italics. I did not edit her comment, but did place my responses within.  (You can also read her comment straight through on the other post.) 
Although it is easy to spend other people's money, it will run out eventually, that being said, I have worked and am currently working two jobs so I will have insurance.

While your money may run out, money itself does not run out. In a healthy economy, money simply keeps changing hands. In our current situation, money isn't changing hands, wealth isn't being distributed, and you are working two jobs. I'll keep coming back to this.

If Romney wins the election, then less wealth will be distributed in the next four years than in the last four years. One of the ways that wealth is distributed in modern American society is via taxes. The rich will continue to pay less of their fortunes in taxes under Romney & Ryan. That means there will be less to go around for the rest of us who have been dubbed "the 99%." If you wish to work three jobs and maybe have health insurance, then your should definitely vote for Romney. 

Obama will raise taxes on the very rich. He will NOT raise taxes on the middle class. The middle class will be better off with Obama & Biden in office for another four years. 

In that time I have witnessed many people only working the bare minimum, smoking, drinking, nails done (for females) hair done, tattoo's, money for drugs, and going to clubs or bars.

I don't smoke. I think that anybody who starts smoking in this day and age must have a strain of stupidity, because the knowledge that smoking causes cancer and a slew of other health problems is everywhere. You have to deaf, blind, and living in a basement to not know that smoking kills.

How many people are screaming in indignation at me right now? Sure. And to continue, I would not deny smokers health care when they develop the nasty symptoms and cancers associated with smoking.

Nor should we throw out the baby with the bathwater, to speak metaphorically, and refuse to have any social welfare programs because you know people who do things and make choices you don't like.
There are many people who do not wish to pay for others not making the better choice.
If you can't balance your own budget, why would I want or intrust you to mine? I wouldn't. Less government, less spending, and more responsibility for your own actions.

I think this is grossly over-simplistic. A government budget that includes expensive and illegal wars (waged by Republicans) in the OOPS! wrong country is pretty damn hard to balance. Much easier to balance your checkbook, I am sure. Not the same thing.

Anything worth having is worth working for, and worth making the proper choice, if you work more you are getting a penalty, if you are getting welfare when do you pay tax?

If it were as easy and simple to just tell everybody to "go get a job," then your point would make sense. Instead of fussing about how welfare recipients don't pay tax, how about fussing that millionaires don't pay tax? Obama will raise taxes on millionaires, not the middle class, and not the poor. Romney will lower his own tax rate from 13% to less than 1%. You think you have it bad now having to pick up the slack for poor people? If Romney wins, you will become a poor person yourself.  

Why can't the government stop people using EBT cards for liquor, smokes, drugs, or anything else for that matter unrelated to food?

I don't know where you are getting your information, but according to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps are for food, not for liquor or cigarettes. Perhaps you are aware of a crime being committed, and now believe that all SNAP recipients should lose their benefits? If somebody is using EBT to get any non-food item, then a crime is being committed. 

Even if I was starving I couldn't get food stamps or anything else for that matter because I have a mortgage albeit not a mansion, and was never living above my means, but anyone with a pulse got loans backed by Fanny and Freddy, not qualified for 100,000.00 let alone 200,000.00 and 300,000.00.

You sound jealous, like you should have lived above your means so you could be in foreclosure or homeless now. 

If you sincerely believe you will be better off on food stamps, then I strongly suggest you sell your home and become poor enough to need food stamps. Then, you can compare your situation now and then and decide whether you are better off on food stamps. 

Food stamps and bank loans to purchase a house are two entirely different things. The reason that so many people got loans that they could not afford was deregulation of the banking industry. Obama & Biden believe that the government should oversee organizations such as the banking industry. Reagan and the Bushes were against government involvement, took away regulation, and paved the way for the recent housing crisis. Romney and Ryan will continue to allow large corporations to rape and pillage the middle class, because their policies favor deregulation. 

The bank customers were not bad people who just wanted more money than they could ever pay back. In most cases, they went to the bank with their tax returns and any other financial information in hand. They asked the banker if they were eligible for the loan. The banker had to make the decision whether the people would reasonably be able to pay back the loan. That was his job.

As the rules regulating bankers and home loans were loosened, banks made money giving loans to unsuspecting home buyers. The home buyers assumed that the bankers knew what they were doing -- and they were right. The bankers were getting rich selling loans. (Similar to credit cards, but more complicated and with dire consequences.)

Having to inspect these housing developments knowing they don't have insurance on their property, or pay their association dues. Why did I bring this example up, well why and how did they get approved in droves with "no doc loans", and why is everyone else taking it on the chin?

When you buy into a subdivision you have to pay the association fee's because it works on a zero balance at the end of the year, so when someone does not pay the balance is in the negative, which means everyone else needs to pick up the slack, that is not how a budget should work.
The government, or the democrats are not getting a budget together and charging more tax, (example) three plus percent sales tax on any house sold $3,800.00 per 100,000. No taxes if you don't earn more than 250,000.00, how is this true? How is Obama care getting ramped up and funded?

The Democrats are not charging more tax on the middle class. The Democrats are charging less tax on the middle class, and want to charge more tax on the extremely wealthy. If you are working two jobs so you can have health insurance, you are in no danger of Obama & Biden raising your taxes. If you own more than one mansion, car elevators and dressage horses, then yes, Obama has every intention of raising your taxes. 

Remember what I said about money itself not running out, but rather that wealth must be distributed? That is what taxing the rich does -- distributes the finite wealth to fund basic social services and public programs.

I know he got into Harvard, but if that is such an achievement why hasn't he produced his transcripts, put up or shut up, or drop it. But all this talk is digging us a deeper whole, and I'm sorry but what is actually on the record is only a huge bill, and is only getting bigger by the second.

Are you serious? You want Obama's school transcripts?!? I am trying to take you seriously, but you need to take a good, long look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why a black man has been repeatedly asked for his birth certificate and a white man doesn't even have to show his tax returns. Tax returns are relevant information, and Obama did show his. Now you want Obama to pony up his school transcripts? Romney went to Harvard Law School. Why don't you want to see Romney's transcripts? Why don't you want to see Romney's birth certificate? 

He has had his way for too long now, and Reagan turned it around in the 80's, proven method, but if your a democrat, I guess it's better to put the entire over a barrel instead of on top, because it was a republican solution.

Reagan turned something around, that's for sure. He started the junk economics of "trickle down" theory. Meaning, if we stop distributing wealth, and let the rich keep it, they will continue to share it out of the goodness of their hearts. It doesn't work: when the rich get to keep their money, guess what they do? They keep it. 

Another name for trickle-down economics: "Supply side economics." That is when the very few get to decide what business makes a profit today, because only the very few have any money to spend. 

Economy, in reality, is driven by demand, not supply. For example, when "job creators" are required to pay living wages to their employees, then more people can afford to purchase goods and services, and the economy gets stronger. Then those so-called "job creators" hire more people, not because they are "job creators" but because there is so much demand for their business that they need more employees. 

If you want a living wage so you can work one job, have health insurance and an easier life for the middle and poorer classes, then you should vote for Obama. 

I have no idea what you are saying about a barrel, other than you think Democrats don't appreciate Reagan simply because we are unthinking Dems. I think Reagan was a sorry excuse for a president because, in addition to the "trickle-down"myth, he ripped away funding from public hospitals and other services for the indigent, which is part of the reason homelessness rose during his tenure.

I remember a tuberculosis (TB) scare in San Francisco in the wake of this fiasco. The homeless were literally littering the street, people had to tiptoe around them just to get to work. The homeless were coming down with TB and coughing into the air; the middle and upper classes became concerned about themselves because TB does not discriminate based upon how much money you have. I thought it served the heartless conservatives right.

It also demonstrates the argument that when we do not build a strong society that takes care of it's own, we all get hurt. Progressives taxes (taxing the rich a higher rate, not a lower rate) to fund not just hospitals but roads, libraries, schools, etc. ensure that we are all better off. If you think you can get rich working yourself to death as long as you don't have to contribute to society via a reasonable tax rate, then your are kidding yourself. 

I wish his talk was cheap, but it is costing us a fortune, in addition to everything else.

It is grossly unfair to blame Obama for an economic situation that was caused by W. Bush. Bush cut taxes for the very rich, Obama will increase taxes for the very rich to help the middle and poorer classes. Bush borrowed gobs of money from our future to wage wars in OOPS! the wrong country and Bush left an economic mess in his wake. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been all fixed up in less than four years.

You have your opinion, and I must say I do not, and will not agree with your opinion in relation to these subjects.
I respect your work, however I will never be silent, because as long as it is still legal to have opinion, this will be mine! 

Silence is deafening. ;-) Never be silent.


  1. Politically speaking here, I'm conservative, but federally or provincially, I cannot vote that way, and probably won't be able to for many, many elections to come. The federal and provincial Conservative parties here are run by neo-cons who pander to the religious right, who place ideology first and foremost, who completely disregard the hard data of science and empirical evidence, who view words like progressive and compromise as the most obscene words in the English language, who have no sense of social responsibility.

    That's become the same story south of the border among Republicans; the party is being strangled by the insanity of the Tea Party faction, and any moderate member of the party has just given up. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower would be horrified by what's become of that party they belonged to.

    Much of the current economic problems go right back to deregulation, to the policies of Reagan that allowed companies and financial institutions to run amok and do what they like. And what we got from that was a financial disaster. Now the party who treats Reagan like a deity wants the public to believe they can fix it with even less regulation.

    1. Thank you for clarifying; I did not mean to sound like I think all Republicans are bad in general. But what the party leaders will do to this country, if they win in November, is a disaster I do not wish to face. Your description and separation of the current conservative leaders and the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower is accurate. I only described the current situation and failed to give a polite nod to reasonable and moderate conservative-minded folk.

    2. I on the other hand do not wish to face the disaster we are currently in, and hope for the other moderate, conservative, and reasonable-minded folk.

    3. Sure, but if you vote in Romney and Ryan, you won't get moderate, conservative and reasonable-minded folk. You will get a rollback on women's health care (below the waist; they will allow us to get mammograms,) less separation of church and state, less taxes on the very rich and more loopholes for businesses. You will see more outsourcing and "job creating" overseas. You will see your roads and bridges collapse because there is no money to fix them. Public education will get worse, and don't expect children in southern states to ever hear the word "evolution." You will see less help for the indigent and poverty-stricken, more children going hungry every day, and no health care options unless you make six figures via investment income. The disaster we are in was caused by rabid-religious, not moderate and completely unreasonable so-called conservatives who borrowed more money for an illegal war in OOPS! the wrong country than any so-called "tax and spend" democrat in history. Want more disaster? Vote for Romney and pray to his Jesus that nothing bad will happen to you in the next four years, while the country crumbles around you.


Please share your thoughts.